Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Sam Posten, Jan 7, 2014.
Price, convenience, no need for GPU enabled PCs. I don't understand why this is controversial.
This review kind of sums up my concerns:
I can come up with many products that are cheap, convenient, and have low barriers to entry. Why aren't they all million sellers? Because they have no identity that you can market to people and convince them to buy. The point where people would consider buying a VR headset because it was a cool, cheap gimmick has passed by a good 2 years and the Go seems like it would have been perfect for that. At this point, it needs to BE something. It needs to be an awesome gaming VR headset, or a really well-made social VR platform, or an interactive media device that is marketed to kids or educational institutions. They should start with this being just one really awesome device and then, after people like it for that one function, push it to be more things. Starting as a bland and inoffensive we-kind-of-do-everything device won't work.
EDIT: I just read another review that summed it up even more succinctly. Millions of people already bought Gear VRs and now they're sitting in a drawer somewhere. Nothing about the Go seems like it would convince those same people to buy another mobile VR headset which is basically just a better Gear VR.
The nice thing about the go is the front of the headset is smooth flat plastic. It's the perfect place to stick jiggly eyes!
Umm...people have been doing that since the first Oculus dev kits came out.
OK, I thought about it a bit more. My very first trackpad, when they were still uncommon, probably in the mid-90s (still have it, it's RS-232), was a Cirque. The trackpad on my rarely-used "instrumentation" laptop, which I just happened to use yesterday (first time this year apparently), is Cirque. So I guess Cirque knows trackpads.
I much prefer a joystick to a trackpad. A small low-profile joystick. Much more positive feel, plus auto-centering (usually) to a pre-defined "neutral". A trackpad can be cheaper and easier to keep clean I suppose. People seem to like the small joysticks.
It's probably time for a new paradigm, rather than re-purposing an existing one. Kind of like the mouse did for desktops, or the touchscreen did for portable devices, though neither were the least bit new when they became popular/widespread. Maybe similarly this will finally be the day of the trackpad...but I just don't think it's "physical" enough for VR control, people like to "hold onto" something a lot more substantial than is actually necessary, it's largely a mental thing.
[I know I keep mentioning it, but if you have not used an Aim in a circumstance that properly implements it (unfortunately nothing all-round great yet, but Farpoint at leasts implements it very well), you are missing how great a purpose-built controller can be. Nothing new here, just close-to-perfect implementation of existing paradigms in a goofy-looking form-factor. Plus amazing precision tracking-accuracy considering the "low end" VR system it has to work in.]
Do you know where I can find a pair of those gag eyeglasses with the lenticular flicker blinking eyes in them?
Gizmodo's review below. Hardware is great, software is lacking, overall kind of meh.
Looks like that reviewer focused primarily on games. As a gaming system, the Go is always going to be second best because it's at its core a cell phone processor. The best apps for the Go are the social and entertainment apps. But the odd thing about that review is that he criticizes the Go for not having a lot of apps to choose from. That isn't true. There are lots of them- more than for other competing lower end VR I'm told.
Yes, there's a lot of apps. But...how many good ones? And of those, how good are they?
And more importantly, what function does the Go have that really sets it apart from the phone that you already have when combined with a Samsung Gear VR?
I read that Sony isn't happy with its PSVR sales, or the consumer VR industry as a whole. Apparently the whole industry hasn't lived up to sales/adoption predictions. Thus the number of lower-cost and easier-to-use devices we're seeing. So...humans are still preferring real reality at this time. Stay tuned.
I think most people have enough imagination and can get involved enough in the artificial circumstances of their gaming or "social interactions" that the VR aspect isn't enough of a draw to compensate for its general lack of spontaneity (you need a space and to set up gear). The Go (and similar) addresses much of that.
Sony said that PSVR sold around 2 million units, which is either the largest or 2nd largest install base of any VR platforms. The barrier for entry is high, so 2 million is pretty great. However, yeah, the industry expected more.
The simpler, all-in-one solutions...probably won't make a difference. Sure, they work well and are cheap enough but they won't find mainstream use. I think if Sony makes PS5 and it comes with great VR in the box and is $400 or less, THEN you will see widespread adoption. But as a general entertainment platform that isn't directly attached to something people already use and love, VR won't catch on.
If cheap and easy wireless VR was going to happen, Samsung Galaxy Gear VR would have made it happen a few years ago. I don't think Oculus Go really has better performance over what Gear VR offers already, and has for a (sort of) lower price.
Lenovo has a more powerful all-in-one VR headset, but the price will keep it from mass-market.
^ Just goes to show you how different the "big players" view things: to me, 2M units sold at ~$350-400 seems like quite a lot. Considering people also had to buy a console for roughly the same amount at some point. Having more games that don't seem half-assed would help...but game development is expensive and selling 2M of a game (if everybody equipped bought it...) isn't considered that big a deal these days. I think they sold in the ballpark of 80M PS4s globally, so maybe they expected more like a 10-25% PSVR adoption rate?
Just how cheap do people think this stuff can/will be? Based on what I recall, Sony tends to keep their prices in roughly the same ballpark for their gaming items, and to increase the performance. IOW they get you used to spending a certain amount for something, and plan to keep draining you of that amount every few years. Near the end-of-life of a product they may put out cheaper (in every way) versions or drop the price a bit.
Nobody who I have met and asked (gamers), including workers at gaming stores etc., has a VR setup of any type. So yes, it's not exactly popular around here, and yet PSVR stuff was somewhat hard to get last Black Friday/Christmas locally (always sold out, VR games too). [I keep mentioning Sony because it's one of the cheapest VR "systems", if you consider the cost of a half-decent gaming PC as part of the cost too, though it's a more generally-useful device.]
PS VR stuff was hard to find because Sony underestimated demand. That said, they didn't underestimate by much.
Yeah, 2 million is great, but like you said it's hard to convince a studio to spend tens of millions of dollars on a game that has, at most, 2 million people it can sell to. That's why most VR games are smaller, on every platform, or have non-VR modes (Resident Evil 7 is a prime example of this).
The thing is, there are so many VR options (from Google Cardboard through a full Vive setup) that anyone who is curious to try it has basically done so. How many people would buy Oculus Go as their first VR device ever? How many are getting the next Vive or Oculus headset but didn't own any VR device before that? VR either needs some amazing new product to be attached to (like a next gen console with VR included, like MS tried to do putting Kinect 2.0 in the Xbox One from launch) or to become a standard feature of every device out there instead of being a unique family of products. AR is already kind of doing that, but only Pokemon Go and a handful of photo apps even use it. VR would need to follow that path.
That's pretty sad it's not meeting their expectations. Like Craig said, I think 2M is very good for the product, and everyone I know who has one loves it. I feel like they just set their expectations too high.
From my point of view support for the PSVR has been great There are a ton of titles available for it and many more to come.
Overall, i'm extremely happy with my PSVR. If Sony dropped any and all support this second, I still feel it was a very worthwhile purchase, and would not regret buying it one bit.
^ Same. The relatively few longer PSVR games I have are enough to keep me going for years, at the rate I play them and also my ability (or lack thereof, e.g. Wipeout). I didn't regret the PSVR purchase within the first week or so. I felt like I got my money's worth that quickly, and that's not usual for me for anything, and I bought the PS4 Pro for it too. It's the cost of an experience.
Still haven't got the RE7 Gold, but will eventually (wish BB sold it here, I have a lot of store credit there I need to use)...went to buy it the week before Christmas and when no stores had it I got the Farpoint/Aim instead. There are quite a few "lesser" games (just my perception based on what other people say) I wouldn't mind looking into as well. And I need to get Battlezone, it'll be my next "major" PSVR game, don't know if it's that good but I liked the demo.
One thing I remember from talking to those people I mentioned above over the last ~6 months: they did mention the "high cost" of VR at least a couple times. These people are a lot younger than me...I kind of forget that, they're in a different stage of their (financial) life and probably have much more important things to spend their money on than this.
I have Battlezone too, and am excited to play it, it looks great and I loved the original back in the day. Just haven't found the time to get to it yet.
I feel like younger = All time, no money; older = All money, no time!
^ Haha, I just happened to order Battlezone (+ some UHDs) about 2 minutes before I read your post!
What was holding me off from getting BZ was the Gold edition (as seen in PS store). I just found out it was a "free" upgrade if you have the regular edition, kind of like the VR version of Wipeout was "free".
I have the time now, to squander my ill-gotten gains.
Santa Cruz is now Oculus Quest:
I think it's really cool that Oculus Quest exists and the price point is exceptional. But...I'm a bit torn on what that means. $400 is still just outside the mainstream price point but still WAY cheaper than the original $1500 for all the equipment of the Oculus or Vive setups, so that's a huge step. It's great that it offers support for the controllers right away and doesn't need anything external, but it also only provides a graphical experience that matches the previous Oculus (rather than something better). I admit that having great VR on-the-go is awesome but matching the experience of like 2 years ago is a bit disappointing.
Definitely hitting the point where this stuff is leaping ahead quickly. I wonder what sort of method they use to keep people from walking into walls.
It's called room guardian. Initial details in that article. It 3d maps your surroundings.